Examination of the relationship between boxers' ruminative thoughts and their self-efficacy perceptions

The main purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between ruminative thoughts and self-efficacy perceptions of boxers and to analyze how this relationship differs in line with demographic variables. In this context, 368 boxers who were actively boxing in 2024 were determined as the sample group. The research was conducted using the relational screening model, one of the quantitative research methods. In collecting the data, "Personal Information Form," "Sports Competition Rumination Scale," and "Self-Efficacy Scale" were used. Statistical methods such as percentage and frequency distributions, Spearman and Pearson correlation analyses, t-test, regression analysis, and Mann-Whitney U test were applied for the analysis of the data. The research findings revealed that there was no significant difference between demographic variables such as gender, nationality, and psychological support status within the framework of the Sports Competition Rumination Scale. In addition, no relationship was observed with the age and sports age variables in the analyses conducted on the same scale. In the analyses conducted in the context of the Self-Efficacy Scale, it is shown that there is no significant difference in the variables of gender and psychological support. On the other hand, a significant difference was found in the perception of self-efficacy in terms of the variable of being a national athlete. In the examinations conducted regarding the variables of age and sports age, no significant relationship was found between both the Sports Competition Rumination Scale and the Self-Efficacy Scale. According to the correlation analysis between the scales, a negative, low-level relationship was found between the Sports Competition Rumination Scale and the Self-Efficacy Scale. Finally, the regression analysis conducted on the prediction of the Sports Competition Rumination Scale and the Self-Efficacy Scale showed that there was a significant difference.